Spencer Oatts, Ben Gibson, Carl White, Yongli Zou, & Chris Dula Department of Psychology East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN

Objective  The purpose of the current study was to assess the frequency of safety belt use among students at a southeastern university.  A secondary assessment was conducted to determine the efficacy of video data collection and field data collection.

Introduction  A NHTSA study found a 40–50% decrease in risk of fatal injury with properly used safety belts (NHTSA, 1984, 1996).  The Tennessee “Click It or Ticket” program was found to increase safety belt use by 20%. (Tennessee Department of Transportation, 2001).  Farrell, Cox, & Geller (2007) found that unbuckled male drivers were significantly more likely to buckle up when prompted by a female.

Introduction  Research from Rosenblum et al. (2004) has shown evidence to support the notion that video coding is a viable alternative to field observation.  We hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in reported safety belt use between video coders and field observers.

Participants  Drivers (14 women, 22 men, 2 undetermined, age range years) were observed naturalistically at an intersection located at a southeastern university.  Thirty-eight vehicles were recorded.  Researchers recorded color of vehicle, type of vehicle, safety belt use, cell phone use, sex of driver, race of driver, number of passengers, and age range of the driver.

Procedure  Two trained field researchers were equipped with a high definition camera to record video data of the vehicles at an intersection.  Data of the vehicles were also recorded manually via field data collection sheets.  The recorded data on the disc in the high definition camera was later transferred onto a computer.

Procedure  Two trained researchers watched the video and recorded any observations onto similar video data collection sheets.  A verbal cue was used to notify the video coders of the specific targeted vehicle.  Once all four researchers collected their data, the data collection sheets were compared using a Pearson’s correlation.

Results  Field Observer 1: Reported 55% of drivers were wearing a safety belt.  Field Observer 2: Reported 79% of drivers were wearing a safety belt.  Video Observer 1: Reported 88% of drivers were wearing a safety belt.  Video Observer 2: Reported 92% of drivers were wearing a safety belt.

Results  The average rates of safety belt use reported was 79%.  Correlation of safety belt use between Field Observers 1 & 2 r = 0.22  Correlation of safety belt use between Video Observers 1 & 2 r = 0.80

Discussion  We can infer that the difference in the report of safety belt rates for Field Observers are significant enough to question the methodology involved.  Field Observer 1 controlled the camera, thus causing less time to record the necessary vehicle demographics. Control of camera could influence the data for the Video Observers.

Discussion  In future research for the study, there will be a third observer who will strictly control only the camera and not record vehicle data.  While we had higher agreement rates for Video Observers, we also must question the methodology involved.  Video Observers had the luxury of rewinding, zooming in, and pausing the video if needed to record the correct vehicle demographics.

Discussion  This luxury could also have caused the result of more compliance between Video Observers.  Subtle cues from body language could have caused subjectivity between Video Observers.  In future research for this study, we will require Video Observers to record the vehicle demographics separately to prevent any kind of subjectivity between observers.

Discussion  From our results, we cannot infer that one method of data collection is superior, however, we can revise our methodology and determine more reliable methods for collecting the vehicle demographics.  Once a consistent method is implemented, our results can be more reliable and our conclusion can be well supported.

Limitations  All of our data came from the same local region.  Different perceptions of vehicle demographics could lead to inconsistency between researchers.  Tinted windows and unfavorable weather conditions limited visibility of the interior for some vehicles.

Future Implications  The results from this study could be used to help develop programs to increase safety belt use.  Future research should be conducted in a variety of locales.  If we can determine which methodology is superior, we can set a standard data collection protocol for the driving research field.

References  Farrell, L.V., Cox, M.G., & Geller, S. G. (2007). Prompting safety belt use in the context of a belt-use law: The flash-for life revisited. Journal of Safety Research, 38,  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 Passenger Car Front Seat Occupant Protection.  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1996a. Presidential Initiative for Increasing Seat Belt Use Nationwide  Rosenblum, K. L., Zeanah, C., McDonough, S., & Muzik, M. (2004). Video- taped coding of working model of the child interviews: a viable and useful alternative to verbatim transcripts? Infant Behavior & Development, 27,